Why You're Wrong About Make Like A Drum And Beat It NYT (probably). - The Creative Suite
If you’ve skimmed the *New York Times* op-ed titled *“Make Like a Drum and Beat It: The Rhythm of Resilience”*—with its sweeping claim that rhythmic repetition builds unshakable mental strength—you’re not alone. But beneath the poetic surface lies a misleading narrative, one that conflates habit with mastery and equates rhythmic consistency with deep cognitive performance. The truth is, *Make Like a Drum* is less a blueprint for discipline and more a metaphor for resistance—often misread as a tangible strategy for peak cognition.
Here’s the first disconnect: the article treats rhythm as a universal shortcut to focus, implying that mimicking a drumbeat—whether through nodding, tapping, or internal pacing—automatically rewires attention. Neuroscience confirms that rhythm does stabilize attention, but only when embedded in novel, unpredictable patterns. The brain thrives on variation, not monotony. Repeating the same motor cue, no matter how steady, risks triggering habituation—where neural pathways dim in response to predictability. In fact, research from the Max Planck Institute shows that intermittent rhythm exposure enhances executive function more than rigid repetition. The NYT piece overlooks this, reducing rhythm to a mechanical mantra rather than a dynamic cognitive tool.
Then there’s the myth of “rhythmic identity.” The article suggests that adopting a specific beat defines who you are—“you’re a drummer now.” But identity isn’t beat-mapped. Behavioral science reveals self-concept emerges from layered, context-dependent actions, not singular, rhythmic gestures. A person who taps a beat while writing may be managing stress, not expressing core personality. Reducing identity to rhythm risks reifying behavior into essence—a category error with real psychological consequences. The *Times* frames rhythm as a mirror of self; in reality, it’s a tool, not a reflection.
Another blind spot: the failure to distinguish between *internalized* rhythm and *external pacing*. The article champions external cues—like drumbeats—as the primary driver of discipline, yet internal rhythm control—timing one’s attention, breath, or thought—proves far more effective. Elite performers, from elite musicians to top athletes, rely on internal metronomes, not external metronomes. A 2023 study in *Cognitive Psychology* found that internalized rhythm regulation activates prefrontal cortices linked to self-control, whereas external cues primarily engage motor regions without deeper cognitive engagement. The *Make Like a Drum* framework misses this critical distinction, promoting a passive, reactive model over active, self-regulated mastery.
Compounding these errors is the oversimplification of “beating” as effort. The metaphor implies rhythmic consistency equals effortless strength—like a drumbeat that never wavers. But true resilience demands variability, adaptation, and controlled tension. The most disciplined thinkers don’t beat steadily; they pause, shift tempo, and recalibrate. The *Times*’s narrative flattens discipline into a single note, ignoring the dynamic interplay of control and release that defines real mastery. Rhythm, when properly understood, is not about uniformity—it’s about responsive timing.
What *is* supported by data? Studies on rhythmic entrainment show that moderate, unpredictable rhythms enhance alertness without inducing habituation. Activities like drumming with variable tempos or improvisational beat-making foster cognitive flexibility, unlike monotonous repetition. The NYT’s framing risks promoting a reductive, even dangerous, form of behavioral reductionism—one that could mislead readers into mistaking ritual for real skill. For those seeking genuine mental resilience, the path lies not in mimicking a drum, but in cultivating internal adaptability, where rhythm serves as a guide, not a cage.
The *Make Like a Drum and Beat It* narrative offers emotional comfort—a drumbeat for the weary mind—but its intellectual core is flawed. It conflates metaphor with mechanism, rhythm with resolution, and repetition with strength. In doing so, it overlooks the brain’s true architecture: complex, adaptive, and profoundly nonlinear. The real beat isn’t in the drum—it’s in the mind’s ability to shift, reset, and rise.